Division! Divisive!

It's a pretty well worn and [too] often heard criticism that the current occupant of the Oval Office is divisive.

  

Seems "division" has been a hot chestnut in the political roasting pan times before. Remembering George W. Bush stressing how he is "... A uniter, not a divider". Now that particular item may have more to do with Bush suggesting that in politics it tends to be too divisive. And, it was argued that that was essentially an appeal to have no politics. At least in areas of agency and policy where it would be in one side's self interest to quell debate.

  

But, isn't it a structural fact that politics carries with it the struggle between opposing ideas and positions. By definition, divisive. Or, more precisely, divided. Fuggedaboutit. That's not my point. I'll let you ponder all the foregoing on your own time.

  

The thing in this 2020 election year — and pretty much since the onset of the 45th's term — has been the Democrat lockstep cry that Donald Trump is divisive. By implication and overtly stated assertions, on the other hand, the good and reliable Joe Biden would be the correction to that; he's a uniter. Well, he does have a track record for being a both-sides-of-the-aisle kind of operator.

  

Yet, I'm struck by the fact that except for the Democrats harping on the claim that DT is a divider, — who ya gonna call? — isn't that divisive in itself? Perhaps, one might argue, the very source of the division.

  

Now, I'm not pitching for the Democrats to not criticize the opposition. [Maybe a little too up to here, however, having had to endure the relentless 24/7/12/365 onslaught of bashing and defaming.] Certainly if we hadn't heard a peep of protest against The Donald, where would it even be suggested that he is a divider. Even to accuse him of that as a generality would be divisive.

  

Look! C'mon, man! [Per Joe] I'm not saying that the President Donald J. Trump hasn't done anything divisive. Let betters hash that one out; oh, you know they will. I'm saying that if not for the very criticisms of dividerishness from the, ahem, loyal opposition, how would the claim that he is a divider be able to stick?

  

Simply put, they have made the charge having been the perpetrators of the same charge in order to make the charge. There's probably a term for that, but I don't know what it is. My education only went so far. And, my willingness to slog around trying to look it up has its bounds. Imagine an Internet search: "What do you call it when the accuser is guilty of the same thing he is accusing in order to make the accusation?" FYI to save you the trouble of looking it up yourself, the search turns up ... "False accusation. Unsupported by the facts." Interesting. But, not really answering the question definitively, huh? [Unless you're a confirmed and blindered Republican and spark to that since it fits your preconceived notions. Oh, there's that sort too on the Democratic side; plenty.]

  

The Democrats have lost a great deal of cred with me over the stunning display of invective toward the current Potus. Wonder what could have been accomplished if that bunch spent even some time working with him. But, no. As I like to put it 24/7/12/365 full press anti just about anything the man says or does. C'mon, man! Not one scintilla of an iota of anything redeemable in the guy?

  

That notion, right there what I just stated, makes me think that the Dems are so cynical — that their constituents will swallow whole whatever they put out on the porch for the cat to lick up — and purely political that it might be argued that they have been derelict in their sworn duty to protect the Constitution and, as just plain old human beings, having not done the right thing.

Now, who's a divider? Divisive?

  

Well, just for writing this in the way I've written it, yes, I'm one of them. That's duality for you. It comes hard wired, divisive. 

Note to self: transcend.